111–117 of 117 posts
It's thinking like this that guarantees one becomes a member of the underclass. We've developed a technology that with active critical analysis this can teach one practically anything. Rather than saying "well, let's get on teaching critical analysis!" we have the vast majority shouting the sky is falling and they are sure glad to be retiring soon. SMH.
I read about 60% of it and skimmed the rest and my conclusion is: Man, I just. don't. care . Why should I worry about this hypothetical future dystopia, which seems to me incredibly unlikely to come to pass, rather than the glaring and terrifying current dystopia being enacted by Donald Trump in the USA?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You keep saying LLMs. But models across many modalities are rapidly improving, evolving and merging. Not sure what you mean by "hand waving" or "fantastical nonsense". Maybe just address points I actually make. 1. Machines with greater cognitive ability than us, potentially much greater, would be an economic challenge for human beings. With no clear answer as to how humans could manage that challenge. 2. Machines are…
1. Possibly, but not necessarily. Many jobs are not dependent on intelligence, and more intelligence isn't going to make much of a difference. Huge portions of the economy have absolutely nothing to do with intelligence and AI bots won't make a difference. For rote, white-collar style work, yes, it's already making a huge impact. But that is certainly not extendable to all human work, even all white collar work. 2-4.…
Objectively, they are surpassing human performance in more areas every year if not every few months.
So we don't need to wait for indicates, they are very visible.
If there were signs this was not continuing, that would be something to bring up. But there are not. The quality of models keeps going up. Relative to human beings.
And where they have surpassed us, they don't stop improving. On many dimensions are clearly superhuman. It is so easy to complain about their weaknesses that somehow, even people who use them, fail to "notice" they are increasingly operating well beyond human capabilities in many ways.
It's thinking like this that guarantees one becomes a member of the underclass. We've developed a technology that with active critical analysis this can teach one practically anything. Rather than saying "well, let's get on teaching critical analysis!" we have the vast majority shouting the sky is falling and they are sure glad to be retiring soon. SMH.
While I would love to share your optimism, if AI continues improving at its current pace most people would be pushed into destitution before they have any ability or opportunity to utilize their newfound knowledge for their own betterment. That's the whole point of "permanent". Nothing you know or do will improve your living standards beyond that threshold.
It's thinking like this that guarantees one becomes a member of the underclass. We've developed a technology that with active critical analysis this can teach one practically anything. Rather than saying "well, let's get on teaching critical analysis!" we have the vast majority shouting the sky is falling and they are sure glad to be retiring soon. SMH.
> We've developed a technology that with active critical analysis this can teach one practically anything. While I would love to share your optimism, if AI continues improving at its current pace most people would be pushed into destitution before they have any ability or opportunity to utilize their newfound knowledge for their own betterment. That's the whole point of "permanent". Nothing you know or do will improv…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We've developed a technology that with active critical analysis this can teach one practically anything. While I would love to share your optimism, if AI continues improving at its current pace most people would be pushed into destitution before they have any ability or opportunity to utilize their newfound knowledge for their own betterment. That's the whole point of "permanent". Nothing you know or do will improv…
Now you're talking about economics, and the morality question nobody wants to include in economics because then the wealthy just leave. And that's the key: the wealthy do not want any laws or boundaries on them, but they insist on them on us.
The premise is a bit of a stretch to begin with, and the idea that people would not believe a fable transcript circa 2020 (as long as explained as 5 year future tech) is absurd. But even if I take that "AI can do all cognitive and physical work, at human level or better, and cheaper than humans" is true, the article seems to silently layer on "and can run autonomously, indefinitely", then "can also operate independen…
> the idea that people would not believe a fable transcript circa 2020 (as long as explained as 5 year future tech) is absurd. I’m certain I would not have believed a Fable transcript, or an Opus 4.8 or a GPT 5.5 one, for that matter. Is it so hard to imagine ourselves back then?
> Within the next three years, robotics should be completely solved, AI should solve a long-standing unproven theorem, programming competitions should be won consistently by AIs, and there should be convincing chatbots.
There was a viral YouTube video from 2014 called Humans Need Not Apply [1], which made a very strong argument that mass unemployment was right around the corner.
I actually think people from the past would be surprised at how slow AI has progressed in the end. Although the domains where it's turned out to be most effective - code, images, videos, music, etc. - would probably surprise them.